History must decide about Nader's continuing calculus that the advancement of a viable third party is more important than the perceived harm of two Cheney/Bush terms, even with hindsight, or a possible third term for McBush.

Since neither major party represents America's vital interests and core values, according to Nader, the relative loss between the present administration and the Democratic alternative(s) that might have been elected if he had not run was not significant enough.

He knows he likely will not sway the election this time. Will Barr or Baldwin, however, help undo McBush like Nader arguably undid Al Gore? Will Paul supporters simply stay home? Will Clinton's come out for Obama?

The stakes of this presidential election are enormous. The consequences of not electing Obama massively threaten our country, our mutual survival and potential progress for our imperfect democracy. Supreme Court nominations, foreign wars, health care, energy and economic policies, all hang in the balance.

Consideration of political and other alternatives is essential to encourage different ways of thinking about our democracy and maybe direct democracy toward better pragmatic solutions without sacrificing integral values.

Work on alternatives to the dominant political order, for example, can continue and even be prioritized, while still advancing policies or electing officials. Along the way to eventual alternatives, one also can vote, advocate, or activate for the best immediate possibility.

Nader could be right about the importance of a third party in the past and the need to continue to fight in the future. He also could recognize that a real choice only exists between the two candidates, however imperfect they might be.

Of course, he won't ... nor must he.

Investing in electoral politics aimed at electing someone in this election demands compromise. One needs to decide if the consequences of inactivity, of violating some principles, or likely failing to accomplish some important policy end are worth the compromise.

Even for one who is committed to the dominant political ordering, compromise is endemic. Candidates disappoint. Errors are made and decisions revisited and reversed. Voting necessarily is inadequate.

Dynamic democratic forces and electoral demands shift constantly. The charge of changing opinions too frequently is valuable and necessary (see Mitt Romney), especially when one is not sure of where the candidate stands or the measure their character (see Mitt Romney).

Attuning a campaign to democratic rhythms requires candidates make considered, enduring decisions without sliding into dogmatism or unthinking consistency. Representatives should adjust their politics to those they represent, who themselves often change their minds.

Again, decisiveness must be counterbalanced with deciding well. Obama reversed his early decision to seek public financing if he won the nomination and could reach an agreement with the Republican nominee.

His video message to potential voters identifies flaws in the ways we finance elections. He defends his reversal as more democratic because his campaign is being financed by grassroots fundraising that directly involves voters and respects their choices.

One may or may not agree with his decision. One might view it as a reversal, a "flip-flop" even. Does his reversal belie politics as usual or a personal character flaw? Should he revisit and re-evaluate campaign decisions?

Is he right that grassroots campaign financing is more democratic than public financing, more responsive and more fair? Does it matter if he is right or not? One's answer to these and other questions reveals some fundamental assumptions about elections and compromise.

Public financing is one issue among many that must be balanced if one is willing to compromise and perhaps even forestall alternatives that one believes are paramount. Even paramount concerns can be evaluated according to their likelihood, viability, and the rest.

To vote for a democratic representative other than oneself mandates compromise. Whether or not one votes remains open for many. Elections require compromise. Candidates compromise. Should you?